ACARS Confirms 9/11 UA 175 Aircraft Was Airborne Long After Crash! Just WOW!

You are definitely reading too much into that, it isn't a literal interpretation.

And, "remote control" is ridiculous in any case. This is clearly shown in the Flight Recorders (FDRs) from American 77 and United 93.

There are many specific controls and devices in the cockpit that can only be manipulated and changed by a human hand. NOT by "remote
control".....since in some cases, the only reason some of these controls were changed was to affect a display in the cockpit, for the
human eyes of the hijacker pilots.

I was thinking more about flight 175 and 11, for which there is no FDR black box (officially).

757s and 767s can be flown entirely under the control of their flight management computer systems (FMCS), according to Boeing.

757s and 767s can be flown entirely under the control of their flight management computer systems (FMCS), according to Boeing.

Ah, but those same computers and systems will NOT allow the airplane to exceed certain limitations and parameters.

The autopilot will NOT allow the airplane to exceed 30&deg angle of bank, for example. UAL 175's angle appeared to be more than that, as the pilot
was correcting his aim, by increasing the abnk angle to the left in the last seconds.

The speeds would NOT exceed Vmo when controlled by the AutoFlight systems.

Merely because the FDRs and that information is not available for AAL 11 and UAL 175, it is not logical to presume that "they" were different from AAL
77 and UAL 93, for which we DO have the data and proof of human intervention, on the controls. WITH the autopilots disconnected.

One more thing.....UAL 175.......the transponder. Which is perfect, since this thread began with that subject in the first place.

Unlike the other three hijackings, the transponder on UAL 175 was NOT turned "Off" (There is no "Off" on the control panel for this jet's
transponder...... only what's called a "Standby" or "STBY" position....it has the same effect though, the transponder stops transmitting).

On UAL 175 the transponder code was changed. So when the original four-digit code was "scrambled" to other random four numbers, the Air
Traffic Control computers at FAA dropped out the Flight Plan information. That hijacker must have thought he was "clever", but he apparently didn't
realize that even with a random code, the transponder return would still show up on Radar, just with no identifying information as to flight number,
type, etc.

What DID show up on Radar was an easy to track return, and it also included the altitude information, since it will continue to squawk Mode C.

In any case, the transponder code being changed PROVES a human was there to do it....the other three airplanes prove that a human switched their
transponders to STBY.

Here, take a look.....although it's a diagram (typically used in training materials) and not a photo, this is representative of the type of "control
head" panel that is installed in Boeings to operate the transponders (there are two, for redundancy in case one fails in flight):

Knob on left, is obvious I think. The STBY position is what I am talking about....no "Off".

TEST is spring-loaded, so it's momentary. XPDR is just "On", and in this particular configuration, will not transmit Mode C altitude info. I know
this, because in this set-up the next position (TA) is "Traffic Advisory" and that's part of the TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) that is now
mandatory almost everywhere in the world. As part of the TCAS, altitude information must be operational, as the transponders "talk" to each other and
compare position and altitude.

TA/RA adds the "Resolution Advisory" portion of TCAS....that means it will then coordinate with the other airplane by issuing verbal and visual
commands to avoid a collision.

The center round knobs are two concentric that rotate to change the four digits in the display. The knob "L R" is obvious for the two transponders,
"Left" or "Right" (or "1" and "2").

The little toggle switches are just for the TCAS display parameters, as shown on the pilot's instruments on the forward instrument panels.

Come on dude, you seriously believe a bunch of half witted suicidal hijackers had the skills and experience to pull these dare devil maneuvers
off, within 15 minutes of each other?

And they just happened to select two very spectacular targets that just happened to spectacularly collapse like controlled demolitions by mistake?
That to me sounds like a very desperate excuse of a cover story.

Come on dude, you seriously believe a bunch of half witted suicidal hijackers had the skills and experience to pull these dare devil maneuvers
off, within 15 minutes of each other?

And they just happened to select two very spectacular targets that just happened to spectacularly collapse like controlled demolitions by mistake?
That to me sounds like a very desperate excuse of a cover story.

edit on 21-1-2012 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)

Argument from incredulity.

Everything you believe was impossible on 9/11 was first force-fed to you by 9/11 "Truthers". Some key elements of that weren't and aren't known to be
impossible by anybody but the no hijacker + CD echo chamber.

The timing is not a surprise....gee, do you think maybe they thought of that when planning it??

And maybe they had wristwatches?

you seriously believe a bunch of half witted suicidal hijackers had the skills and experience to pull these dare devil maneuvers
off...

"...half witted..." ?? Well, when backed into a corner by facts and logic, guessing this is the only recourse, eh?

Oh, and "....dare devil maneuvers...." too?

Really....flying an airplane so as to aim at a VERY large and obvious target, with intent to hit it. Yeah, I am certainly not "dare
devil" enough to want to do that......doesn't mean it is difficult, though.

Easy to just hit the tower maybe, but to hit it face on damn right it's hard you have to be lined up correctly on approach or you might come in at the
wrong angle or hit the corner. Did these suicidal hijackers plan which face to hit too? They could of both hit the same tower by mistake. They're
flying at 500mph and hitting the building which isn't much wider than the plane, yet the whole of the plane goes in both times. That's a spectacular
and co-ordinated attack in itself, and then it's followed by two even more spectacular events, the first tower collapse and then the second, which
wasn't an accident either.

Easy to just hit the tower maybe, but to hit it face on damn right it's hard you have to be lined up correctly on approach or you might come in at
the wrong angle or hit the corner. Did these suicidal hijackers plan which face to hit too? They could of both hit the same tower by mistake. They're
flying at 500mph and hitting the building which isn't much wider than the plane, yet the whole of the plane goes in both times. That's a spectacular
and co-ordinated attack in itself, and then it's followed by two even more spectacular events, the first tower collapse and then the second, which
wasn't an accident either.

edit on 21-1-2012 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)

Argument from incredulity. Most if not all of what you think is impossible on 9/11 was force fed to you by 9/11 'truthers'. You have no
understanding of the events on that day, rendering your opinion, which is just an opinion, useless.

.....but to hit it face on damn right it's hard you have to be lined up correctly on approach or you might come in at the wrong angle or hit
the corner.

This isn't a game of darts.

They had control of the airplane, and they had eyes to judge their aim, all the way in until impact. Do you think you could steer your
car into a bridge abutment, if you wished? You are trying to remain incredulous, with the false assertion that they aimed once, from a distance
away, and then never corrected on the way inbound.

Did these suicidal hijackers plan which face to hit too?

Dunno.....but it sure looks like it:

We can only speculate.....one possibility was that they hoped, perhaps, to cause the buildings to topple in opposite directions..... No one will
know, most likely. They may have pre-planned the routes by picking out landmarks on the ground to help alignment of the final approach, as seems to
be the case with the Pentagon (Columbia Pike highway).

They're flying at 500mph ....

Not the entire time.....only in the last several seconds, by using altitude trade-off for airspeed build-up...that is the ONLY way to have achieved
those velocities at that altitude. Full power on the engines, and descent to make the speed exceed Vmo.

.....and hitting the building which isn't much wider than the plane....

So?

......and then it's followed by two even more spectacular events, the first tower collapse and then the second, which wasn't an accident
either.

Sigh.....many who were familiar with the design of the Towers were known to have anticipated the collapses, based on the extent of the damage that
they could infer from the impacts.

BTW, the "first" Tower to collapse was the one hit last, by UAL 175. Because its damage was off-center (despite your claim of how "accurate"
they were). He almost just grazed the corner, but he adjusted all the way in. Still, off-center as it was, the upper intact portion's load was even
more unevenly distributed than on Tower 1, and this led to an acceleration of the failure of the structural elements and their connections below....so
the "last straw" (or nearly simultaneous multiple "straws") was reached sooner than for the other Tower. By several minutes, as is shown in the
history.

The ACARS does not work like, nor resemble in any way, a cell phone text message.

You picked out a comment from page one. Perhaps if you read the rest of the thread??

Well excuse me Professor. Ha ha. I guess it doesn't matter that my interest in the content deeply drifted off after page one zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Comments like yours are the reason membership on this site has diminished with multiple threads devoted to ATS member's rudeness. Obviously my
knowledge of the subject matter is less than that of yours but was still trying to add something substantial to overall integrity of the thread.

The ACARS does not work like, nor resemble in any way, a cell phone text message.

You picked out a comment from page one. Perhaps if you read the rest of the thread??

Well excuse me Professor. Ha ha. I guess it doesn't matter that my interest in the content deeply drifted off after page one zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Comments like yours are the reason membership on this site has diminished with multiple threads devoted to ATS member's rudeness. Obviously my
knowledge of the subject matter is less than that of yours but was still trying to add something substantial to overall integrity of the thread.

edit on 21-1-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)

You trumpeting your lack of interest in a thread suggests and presumes we care what you think. We don't. Don't let the door hit ya.

Nope. I just think you wouldn't be missed. No feelings involved, just calculated evaluation of your value to this forum, which I estimate to be nil.
I admit its based on only a few comments, but that's more or less the point: to see that kind of uselessness shine through so clearly in the span of
so few comments is remarkable. I don't mean to offend you but that's not something to be proud of, it's something to be embarrassed about.

Nope. I just think you wouldn't be missed. No feelings involved, just calculated evaluation of your value to this forum, which I estimate to be nil.
I admit its based on only a few comments, but that's more or less the point: to see that kind of uselessness shine through so clearly in the span of
so few comments is remarkable. I don't mean to offend you but that's not something to be proud of, it's something to be embarrassed about.

Someone like you can't offend me. "It's mind over matter...I don't mind because you don't matter."

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.